A policyholder's failure to adhere to contract terms and deadlines results in forfeiture of benefits, underscoring the binding nature of the insurance agreement.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 5.2.2021 passed by the learned District Commission (hereinafter referred to as District Commission), West Tripura, Agartala in Case No. C.C. 50 of 2019 whereby and where under the learned District Commission dismissed the complaint petition filed by the complainant, the appellant herein, being devoid of merit.

2. . Heard Mr. Amrit Lal Saha, learnee Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant (hereinafter referred to as complainant) as well as Mr. Sampad Choudhury, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents (hereinafter referred to as opposite party No. 1, 2 and 3 or opposite parties / Insurance Company).

3. The material averments in the complaint case are as follows:

4. The complainant, Sri Pranab Das, the appellant herein, filed a complaint petition under S.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the learned District Commission against the opposite parties, i.e. the respondents herein. The sum and substance of the allegations are that, after the death of his father, the complainant was appointed under the disposal of Commandant, 20 Battalion BSF. While he was in service, he purchased a Life Insurance Policy from the opposite parties, TATA AIA Life Insurance Company Ltd. and paid the 1st premium amounting to Rs. 25,029 on 25 th March, 2012. After joining the service, he was suffering from various ailments and due to which he ultimately resigned from the service and consequent thereto, he was falling into financial constraints. Thereafter, he filed a petition before the appropriate authority of the Insurance Company expressing his desire to discontinue the said Insurance Policy and also prayed for refund of the amount deposited as premium of the policy. As the opposite parties, Insurance Company did not reply to his petition, he issued a legal notice to the opposite parties, but the opposite parties also did not pay any hid towards his legal notice.

5. Being aggrieved by the action of the opposite parties - Insurance Company, the complainant filed the complaint petition for refund of the premium amount deposited by him to the Insurance Company along with interest, compensation and cost, totaling Rs. 2,00,000 only.

6. The learned District Commission after receipt of the complaint petition issued notices upon the opposite parties for their appearance.

7. The opposite parties appeared and submitted their written statements. In the written statements it is stated that there is no cause of action for filing the complaint. It is also stated that as per terms and conditions of the Policy, the complainant is not entitled to get any refund as sought for. The opposite parties - Insurance Company also took a plea that the complainant for the first time send a grievance letter to the opposite parties which was received by the opposite parties on 10.1.2017, i.e. after a lapse of more than 5 years from the date of issuance of policy and thereafter, the complainant sent a legal notice which was accordingly replied intimating the complainant through his Counsel that the policy was issued as per terms and conditions and in the said policy contract it was specifically mentioned that in case the policy holder is not satisfied with the policy contract he / she should return the same within the Free - Look Period. The opposite party - Insurance Company also mentioned that they have not received any free look cancellation from the complainant. The opposite parties - Insurance Company also mentioned that the provisions as expressed in the terms of the policy are in accordance with the IRD